High Court to decide flats' fate

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE & MBONGENI MGUNI
Staff Writers | Wednesday April 13, 2011 00:00

 

Last year, Mmegi reported exclusively about a dispute that had arisen between developers of the Extension 9 flats and the city council over alleged irregularities in building designs and permits. The dispute, sparked by a complaint from a landowner adjacent to the flats, reached the Minister of Lands and Housing office before eventually landing before Justice Michael Leburu last year.

This week, documents emerged indicating that the city fathers ordered the flats' destruction in January, when the matter had already reached the High Court. In a letter to the developers dated January 14, this year, the city council gave notice to demolish the building arguing that it was erected without lawful and properly approved plans.

'You built a multi residential plot on a single residential plot and you did not have permits properly and lawfully issued by GCC,' states the letter. Further GCC contends that the developer did not have inspection done on trench, hard-core, wall, roof, and drainage and sewerage system. 'The demolition of the building must have been completed by February 18, 2011,' reads the letter.

In another letter to the developers dated January 26, GCC legal advisor Linchwe Tlhowe said that the officer purported to have issued an occupation permit for the flats, denies ever visiting to do any inspection. 'Hence the occupation certificate you have from your client is disputed,' said Tlhowe. 'The building permit bearing the signatures of one Phirinyane who was once employed by GCC is in dispute. The said officer denies ever signing the said building permit.

'Therefore the validity of the said building permit is questionable and hence GCC is of the view that the law has not been complied with, thus the structure was build and occupied unlawfully.'

In addition, lawyers representing the landowner, who is the plaintiff in the matter, say the building violates their client's privacy and has caused damage to the client's property during construction. 'Our instructions are to make application to court and have the building demolished and or alternatively, seal off all windows facing and looking into our client's property. In addition the builder should immediately and without fail repair our client's wall and electric fence as the latter constitutes a security issue for our client,' Kgalalelo Monthe said in correspondence to the developers prior to the case reaching court.

In response, however, the developers have vehemently opposed the allegations levelled by the plaintiff, as well as suggestions from the local authorities. In affidavits filed before Justice Leburu, the developers say no by-laws were violated during the construction of the building and add that the plaintiff's views were duly sought prior to construction.

'The plaintiff's views were duly considered by the building control authority and permission to proceed with the construction was nevertheless granted,' reads a defence document. The developers say the construction of the building did not in any way invade the plaintiff's privacy; the defendants also deny responsibility for any damage made to the plaintiff's structures during construction. In addition, the developers say where problems are found with the building design, the city council, on application by the builder, is able to waive these conditions without resorting to arguments about demolition of the property. The developers have a raft of documents ready to present to court which allegedly indicate that all permits and approvals were granted prior to the construction and occupation of the building.

The Extension 9 flats, believed to have cost between P7 and P8 million to build, are already occupied. Parties in the matter are due in court again soon.